On Thursday, the DJC published an article I wrote on a new report that says codes are getting in the way of cutting edge green buildings. This, in itself, is really nothing new.  Last August, I wrote this article about the city’s Priority Green program. In it, DPD’s Peter Dobrovolny (whose last name is almost as difficult as mine!) said many projects consider innovative ideas but drop them when they realize how much extra time it will take under city code. However, having the problems and possible solutions written down in an actual report - well that is new.

However, the report. Is. Huge. If you dare to read it, click here . It manages to be very

The Rubik's Cube of codes

comprehensive and vague at the same time. It is comprehensive in that it studies code barriers across the country, identifies problems and makes recommendations. But because it is dealing with national issues, some of the solutions are vague in their range. For example, one solution is to “identify and address regulatory impediments to green building and development” while another is to “create incentives matched with desired goals.”

I spoke with one of the study’s primary authors, David Eisenberg of the Development Center for Appropriate Technology, this week. Essentially, he said codes are built incorrectly in that they are hundreds of ad hoc responses to problems. Codes, he said, should instead be built comprehensively to support a specific kind of development or project. Basically, he said the entire system needs to be rebuilt.

Ouch.

In Seattle, it can take months or years for changes (especially large ones) to occurr. Can you imagine what it would take to wipe out all the city departments responsible for allowing development to get built… and then to rework the system from scratch? 

Eisenberg said he realizes that what he’s asking might be impossible. But even if it is impossible, by voicing the idea, he hopes to get people talking about it. Everyone - he said - whether it’s greenies or permitting people or anyone really - wants healthy buildings. And our current code system does not encourage healthy buildings because it pawns risks relating to climate change and environmental degradation off on future generations.

What do you think about all of this, dear readers? Is there any possibility that our overall codes could be reworked and if so, what would you want them to encourage? Here in Seattle (where we are pretty progressive in environmental issues, at least compared with some parts of the country) do we even need to be considering reworking the system or do we need to tweak it? If you could totally rework one code or issue, what would it be?

The end of summer has been a big month for trees in Seattle. First, there was the Ingraham High School Debacle (if you missed it, read the Seattle Times story here). Then three trees on the Burke Gilman were murdered (see my colleague Shawna Gamache’s blog SeattleScape here). Now, Mayor Greg Nickels has announced interim

Trees at Ingraham

Trees at Ingraham

regulations to better protect our green leafy friends.

Now, for background, trees are one of the city’s priorities this year and both DPD and the Seattle City Council have been looking at ways to increase urban tree cover. But it seems like these two issues - Ingraham and the Burke Gilman - were the last straw to break the camel’s back. (Or just a shrewd move on the mayor’s part, either way.)

Chambers Bay carnage

null

The new regulations, which would need to be approved by the city council to take affect and would only last until the official string of regulations are proposed, deal with an “exceptional tree.” Before, an exceptional tree was one with unique historic, ecological or aesthetic value, and was an important community resource. If the council passes this interim regulation, an exceptional tree will be one with substantial tree canopy, as well as groves of trees. The regulations will then prohibit the removal of all exceptional trees unless the removal is associated with a corresponding development permit.

For other trees, the regulations will prohibit the removal of more than three non-exceptional trees, 12 inches or greater in diameter in one year when not associated with a permit.

It will also increase penalties for willful or malicious violations of tree protections. Think this doesn’t happen often? See the gruesome cut in the tree above? That happened last spring at Chambers Bay (to read more click here).

Will make people think twice or will they keep employing gardeners who “accidentally” remove the trees in the backyard that were coincidentally imparing a view?

If you’re a developer who’s been asking for “expedited permitting” for green buildings in Seattle… you’re not going to get it any time soon. What you are going to get, however, is “facilitated permitting.”

Facilitated permitting means that for pilot projects accepted into the program (like Bruno Lampert’s Capitol Hill project pictured at left), you get one contact person at DPD who will identify problem code areas and help work through the issues with you. Only super green projects (comparable to LEED gold or platinum) will be accepted into the program… sorry LEED silver, you’re just not green enough. 

There are a number of code issues that sit in the way of going after really green systems. In fact, they pretty much run the gamut of topics depending on what you’re looking to do.

Bradley Khouri, architect with b9 Architects, is working on Urbansight, a project in the Priority Green pilot program. He said to really encourage green building, permitting needs to be quicker for green projects, it needs to be easier to deconstruct a project and the city needs to better recognize the use of stormwater on site. He also said zoning for infill development needs to be rewritten, but that’s another story.

What do you think are the code issues that need to change? (To read a past post on this topic, click here).

The city has been talking about launching an expedited permitting process for months, but when it came down to it, they didn’t want to guarantee projects going through the program would get through quicker than others, because they would have tougher code issues to deal with. For more on this topic, read my story in the DJC here.

So Seattle developers, if you want ”expedited green permitting,” you’re going to have to go to Kirkland…. they’ve got it for single-family green houses and are looking at it for commercial buildings. If on the other hand, you’re willing to pursue super green systems and are cool with the “facilitated” title, Seattle’s just the place for you.

Want to be a critical member of Seattle’s green building team? Now’s your chance because the city of Seattle is looking for a new green building coordinator.

The person will “oversee and lead planning of market transformation strategies related to integration of City Green Building programs and awareness,” according to the job description.

But that’s not all. The person will also work a lot with the mayor’s office, be a spokesperson for the City Green Building Program, manage media relations and develop consultant contracts, among other activities. Whew!

If this person is you, you’ve got to have three years experience in one of a variety of fields that connects directly to planning and development.

Here’s the rub, I don’t know who you’re supposed to contact if you are interested. But you can always start with the DPD Green Building Web site here. Happy job hunting!